• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Linlithgow Natural Grid_Initial Report
 

Linlithgow Natural Grid_Initial Report

on

  • 137 views

Initial report of the Linlithgow Natural Grid project

Initial report of the Linlithgow Natural Grid project

Statistics

Views

Total Views
137
Views on SlideShare
133
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 4

https://twitter.com 4

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Linlithgow Natural Grid_Initial Report Linlithgow Natural Grid_Initial Report Document Transcript

    • 3/24/2014 Examining the Options for a Green, Low Carbon Community Feasibility of district and renewable energy options for buildings in and around Linlithgow Cross Mohammed S Imbabi, Anna Liszka School of Engineering, King’s College Aberdeen AB24 3UE, Scotland (UK)
    • About the Author of the Report Dr Mohammed Salah-Eldin Imbabi, BSc (Hons), MSc, PhD is a scientist, professional engineer and innovator in the diverse fields of civil engineering, low energy building engineering, energy efficiency and renewable energy. Major sponsors of Dr Imbabi’s research include the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Scottish Executive and the Carbon Trust. He is Director of the Centre for Innovative Building Materials and Technologies (CIBMT) at the University of Aberdeen, member of the Technical Advisory Group of the Renewable Energy Foundation (London), the International Advisory Council of the World Renewable Energy Network's (WREN), IEA Task Force 44 on ‘Integrating Environmentally Responsive Elements in Buildings’ and the 2006-2010 and 2010-2014 Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) College. Dr Imbabi is the author of more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers and is Associate Editor of the International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment. In undertaking the work of this report, Dr Imbabi was assisted by Miss Anna Liszka, BSc (Hons), MSc, a graduate chemical engineer with expertise in Energy and Environmental Sciences. Valuable contributions were also received from the members of Transition Linlithgow, in particular Messrs Neil Barnes, Chris Cook and Alan Brown. © Copyright 2014
    • i  Contents Page Executive summary ii Headline conclusions and recommendations iii Introduction 1 Scope of the study 3 From grid to communal and district energy 3 The technologies considered 4 Implementation routes 7 Baseline survey of the location 8 Methods used to establish the baseline 8 Buildings disaggregated by type, age and size 11 Energy use and carbon emission summaries 15 Energy, carbon and cost maps 19 The buildings of Linlithgow Cross 28 Off-grid energy supply options 30 Benefits to the community 30 The solutions considered 32 Incentives & finance models 39 Government-incentives 39 Asset value enhancement 41 Complementary finance and funding 43 Our ambition for Linlithgow 43 The bottom line: specs & costs 46 Quantitative evaluation 46 Comparative analysis 53 Conclusions and recommendations 57 Preliminary conclusions 57 Recommendations for future work 60 Community feedback summary 61 References 64 Appendix 1 65
    • ii  Examining the Options for a Green, Low Carbon Community Feasibility of district and renewable energy options for buildings in and around Linlithgow Cross Executive summary Transition Linlithgow (TL) wishes to promote the idea of a ‘Linlithgow Natural Grid’ (LNG) towards a ‘sustainable energy future’ for the town and its residents. The objective of the present report is a feasibility study for a specific district / communal and renewable heating system, or CHP, for appropriate buildings in and around Linlithgow Cross. The aim of the study was to report on the best available, viable and priority option(s) for district / communal and renewable heating systems for buildings in and around Linlithgow Cross. An important part of the work has been completion of a detailed baseline survey of energy consumption of the existing building stock. The technologies considered by the authors of the report include centralised district heating in the form of a biomass boiler, a large CHP cogeneration system, two μ-CHP cogeneration systems, one based on a small Internal Combustion (IC) engine + generator and the other using a reformer + fuel cell, ground and water- based heat pumps and a new type of high performance superinsulation. The target survey area encompassed the Linlithgow Cross zone, bounded by he railway line to the south, New Well Wynd to the west, the Loch to the north and High Port Road to the east as shown in Figure 10 in the main report. The results, all based on 2013 data, reveal great variability in electricity consumption (from less than 50 to over 300 kWh/m2/yr), gas consumption (from less than 50 to over 400 kWh/m2/yr) and also the associated carbon emissions (less than 30 to more than 112 kgCO2/m2/yr). Energy cost per building (less than £1,500 to more that £11,000 per year) follows a similar trend. The results, mapped using a new ‘Community Efficiency Rating’, similar in form to the ‘Energy Efficiency Rating’ that is issued with Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), are summarized in Figures 23 to 29 in the main report. Preliminary specifications and costs were obtained from 7 providers for the range of technologies considered (Finning, Vital Energi, CFCL, iPower, CTC, SAV UK and Dyinso), with capital costs ranging from £1.68 to 5.89 million, and payback from government subsidies ranging from 5.5 to 196.5 years and ROIs ranging from 1% to 18%. The latter figures assume all of the energy savings go to the consumer and that carbon reduction by other means has no value, which is unrealistic, simply to demonstrate the profound influence of government subsidy on choice.
    • iii  Headline conclusions and recommendation The main conclusions are:  There is significant variation between building types, sizes, historic significance and the type and range of energy demand in the Linlithgow Cross area;  Finding one technological solution that fits all will not be possible: a mix of technologies and technological solutions is required;  Seven technologies were considered in the course of this study, all of which can contribute to significant reductions in energy use and carbon emission;  Of the 7 technologies considered, only 1 (Large CHP, by Finning) can provide a stand-alone, grid-independent technological solution;  Two μ-CHP technologies (Fuel cell by CFCL and IC engine by SAV UK) can be use as part of 3 or more Hybrid, grid-connected technological solutions;  A subset of 8 technological solutions that save energy and include one or more of the 7 technologies considered in the report are presented in Table 8;  The results suggest that energy use and carbon emissions in Linlithgow can be reduced by 50% or higher across the board. This translates to an average saving of around £730 per year for every property owner in Linlithgow Cross;  In all cases, the ‘fabric first’ principle applies: what this means is that it is a pre- requisite for the buildings in Linlithgow Cross to first be properly insulated;  The capital and operating (including recurring maintenance) costs of the selected technological solutions that have been discussed vary significantly;  Government subsidy is a two-edged sword that disproportionately distorts the economic viability of some solutions in favour of others;  A community managed Energy Supply Company (ESCo) could generate the repayments for the ‘indeterminate’ technological solutions, but care is needed to ensure this does not completely erode energy cost savings to the consumer;  The priority is to identify technological solutions for pilot / demonstration projects that would put the findings of this preliminary feasibility study to the test;  The following are tentatively proposed energy hotspot candidate buildings / groups of buildings on the energy map in Figure 37:  Community GSHP (CTC) + VSDI (DYINSO) system (3), Cross House;  Social Housing tenement, small IC engine μ-CHP (SAV UK) + VSDI (DYINSO) system (4), 223 Brae Court;  Domestic / Small Business fuel cell μ-CHP (CFCL) + GSHP (CTC) + VSDI (DYINSO) system (6), 212-214 High Street;  Education / Leisure large CHP (Finning) + VSDI (DYINSO) system (7), Low Port Centre and Primary School. The recommendations for future work are: Firstly, Transition Linlithgow needs to keep the passion alive by demonstrating to others the tangible benefits of the work that has been done and demonstrating what is possible and practicable to do. Armed with the findings of this report and continued
    • iv  backing of the local community, it should be a relatively straightforward matter to produce a strong, detailed funding proposal / application. This has to be done without delay or loss of momentum, to realize one or more pilot demonstration projects based on the ones that have been outlined in this section. Secondly, engage with the suppliers of the technologies that have been examined in the report and ask them to help develop detailed proposals (designs, performance predictions, etc.) for the target buildings / building groupings that were identified in Figure 37 of the main report. Two open calls, one funded by the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) and the other by Europe’s Horizon 2020 (H-2020) programme are of direct relevance. Thirdly, focus on the 2 factors that will determine the success or failure of the effort in future, namely (a) is it practical and do-able, and (b) is it affordable and can it be financed? Fourthly, do this quickly, to maximize the use of government subsidy, which is finite, to leverage the changes and investment that need to happen to make the transition to a low carbon future possible.
    • 1  Examining the Options for a Green, Low Carbon Community Feasibility of district and renewable energy options for buildings in and around Linlithgow Cross Introduction Transition Linlithgow (TL) wishes to promote the idea of a ‘Linlithgow Natural Grid’ (LNG) towards a ‘sustainable energy future’ for the town and its residents. The two areas of research that have been agreed are: Option (a) - A town-wide scoping study of all potential opportunities for renewable and other forms of energy generation that could be led and delivered by the community and its partners; Option (b) - A feasibility study for a specific district / communal and renewable heating system, or CHP, for appropriate buildings in and around Linlithgow Cross. Dr M S Imbabi at the School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen (UOA), was invited by TL in November 2013, with support from the Community And Renewable Energy Scheme (CARES), to carry out the Option (b) study. The results are reported in this report. The aim of the study was to explore the best available, viable and priority option(s) for district / communal and renewable heating systems for buildings in and around Linlithgow Cross. An important part of the work was to carry out a detailed ‘baseline’ survey of the existing building stock. Understanding the status quo, to give better insights into the household energy consumption and dwelling characteristics in the Linlithgow Cross area, was considered an essential pre-requisite to improving the quality of energy balance at a local level. The specific objectives were to: O1. Conduct high quality research in order to produce a report that can be used as the basis of plans towards future funding for installing new communal / renewable energy systems, particularly with regard to heating a diversity of Linlithgow Cross buildings; O2. Provide concept design to allow TL to move to funding applications for delivery and installation inclusive of detailed M&E design; O3. Gain an in-depth and comprehensive understanding of the viability of the options around communal heating, CHP, biomass, heat pumps and solar energy;
    • 2  O4. Raise awareness of any relevant and associated building energy conservation adaptations / measures that could be applied; O5. Complete the research within the confines and budget of the CARES grant and resources secured subject to the agreement of TL’s Management Committee; O6. Share the conclusions and recommendations of the research with the owners and tenants of the buildings, stakeholders and wider community. The work was arranged under the following discrete task headings: T.1. Conduct background research, assimilation and provision of context (m1); T.2. Identify appropriate buildings in and around the Linlithgow Cross area that might benefit, including any obvious opportunities for energy conservation (m2); T.3. Provide and analyse the baseline data for the priority / target buildings (m3); T.4. Identify, develop and test the potential heating and renewable energy solutions and savings compared with current in-situ heat provision (m4); T.5. Map and provide graphics of the Linlithgow Cross zone for appropriate buildings that could be connected to a district / communal / renewable heating system(s); T.6. Identify potential opportunities and barriers to installation (m5); T.7. Analyse the findings and provide key recommendations (m6). The overall plan and work schedule is summarized in the Gantt chart below: Notes i. The project durations shown above are based on part time work at 0.4 fte’s by the RA (Miss Anna Liszka, UOA). ii. UOA will work with TL to identify and tap into follow-on funding sources for (a) one or more pilot demonstration projects to establish technical and economic feasibility, (b) development, design and implementation of the winning solutions, and (c) in-use, real-world performance monitoring, documentation and dissemination of the results. TL / CARES Project Plan Task Task Description Duration No. (Days) Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 1 Carry out SOTA review 7.5 m1 2 Assess LC area building stock 12.5 m2 3 Establish target building(s) baseline 7.5 m3 4 Develop and test Options (1-3) 20 m4 5 Carry out SWAT analysis 7.5 m5 6 Write final report 12.5 m6 Total 67.5 (27 fte) Start End é é Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14
    • 3  Scope of the study From grid to communal and district energy Over 60% of the primary energy in fuel is wasted as unwanted heat at power stations and around 2% as transmission losses [1, 2]. If electricity is generated closer to densely populated areas, this wasted heat can be used to heat buildings through heat networks. This arrangement is called ‘decentralised energy’. Figure 1. The typical centralized power generation process wastes approximately two-third of primary energy in the form of heat rejected into the atmosphere [1]. By moving the generation of electricity by combustion closer to populated areas, the heat that’s normally wasted can be distributed to buildings through district heating networks. This means we would no longer need to burn gas in individual buildings for heating and, as the electricity is generated closer to where it’s used, less energy is lost during transmission and distribution. If well managed, this can also help to ensure energy is affordable to consumers. Figure 2. The decentralised power generation system. District energy captures heat that is normally rejected to atmosphere by centralised power generation systems [1].
    • 4  The technologies considered { Centralized district heating } District heating is the local production and distribution of thermal energy. It is seen by many as an efficient means of providing locally generated thermal energy for heating and cooling homes, commercial and institutional buildings and industrial processes. District heating systems comprise of two main elements: - A centrally located plant (boiler) containing equipment that produces thermal energy in the form of steam or hot water for heating, or chilled water for cooling. - A network of insulated pipes to distribute the thermal energy from the central plant to the buildings. The steam, hot water, and/or chilled water that are distributed can provide services that include space heating / cooling and, domestic hot water. There are many examples of communal and district heating projects. In Europe, heat networks are estimated to deliver an annual turnover of €25-30 billion and 556 TWh heat sales [1]. Many European cities are almost entirely connected to a heat network and models being developed by the UK Government suggest that up to 20% of UK domestic heat demand might be served by heat networks by 2030. Reducing heating costs will help households reduce energy bills, particularly for the most in need. More households can benefit from such schemes, and for developers working with registered social landlords this is one way to gain more control over the costs of heating for their tenants. A good example of a renewable heating option implemented in Scotland is Aberdeen’s gas-fired CHP scheme that has reduced carbon emissions by up to 45% across all of the buildings in the scheme. District heating is appropriate and economical for new developments and heat networks can make good use of renewables such as hydrogen or biomass. Sustainable Glasgow has set up a District Heating Strategy Group to develop proposals for an integrated city network, and in Wick a biomass district heating scheme is providing heat to the Pultneytown Distillery and social housing [3]. Figure 4. Tower blocks connected to Aberdeen Heat&Power's heat network [3]. Figure 4. Pipework for the Commonwealth Games Village in Glasgow [3].
    • 5  { Cogeneration, trigeneration and μ-CHP } With reference to Wikipedia, “Cogeneration, or combined heat and power (CHP) is the use of a heat engine or power station to simultaneously generate electricity and useful heat. Trigeneration or combined cooling, heat and power (CCHP) refers to the simultaneous generation of electricity and useful heating and cooling from the combustion of a fuel or a solar heat collector. A plant producing electricity, heat and coolth is a trigeneration or polygeneration plant”, see Figure 5 [5]. μ-CHP is the same as CHP but at smaller scale, e.g., serving a single dwelling or small building. Figure 5 { Heat pumps } Heat pumps are classified as a renewable source of energy. A heat pump is simple in concept. It comprises an electrically driven compressor, evaporator and heat exchanger to efficiently transfer (pump) heat from a low grade source such as ambient air (Air Source Heat Pump, ASHP), ground (Ground Source Heat Pump, GSHP) or water (Water Source Heat Pump, WSHP) to high grade heat that can be used to heat water or indoor air in a building. The basic arrangement for a heat pump operating at a Coefficient of Performance (COP) of 3 (i.e., 1 kWe electrical energy used to produce 3 kWth of thermal energy) is illustrated in Figure 6. Figure 6
    • 6  In theory, the smaller the temperature differences between the low and the high ends, the higher the COP. There are many examples of innovative use of heat pumps. A Mitsubishi Electric Ecodan heat pump system was recently used to harvest naturally stored energy from the River Thames, and then deliver under-floor heating and hot water for 56 affordable homes, 81 private apartments and a new 145- bedroom hotel being built by NHT Leisure Developments – see Figure 7 [6]. § Figure 7 { Void Space Dynamic Insulation (VSDI) [7] } Efficiency of energy supply has to be balanced by efficient demand. It is essential that basic measures are taken to reduce heat loss through the fabric / envelope of an older un-insulated, leaky building. Measures to reduce heating demand will deliver higher energy efficiency with reductions in both operating and capital costs. A challenge is to insulate well but keep it thin, which is where superinsulation comes in. VSDI by Dynamic Insulation Solutions Ltd, is a form of superinsulation that combines thermal insulation and ventilation to reduce fabric heat loss. It is a type of dynamic insulation where the airflow is through a void within the plane of the wall and the direction of flow is normal to the direction of heat flow – see Figure 8. Cold fresh air is passively or actively drawn through the insulation layer, pre-heated by the heat loss (B) to recover part of that heat loss (C) which is returned it to the building as tempered air. The balance (D) = (B - C) is what is lost from the building. The materials used are impermeable to airflow, so ordinary sheets of insulation can be used with a VSDI spacer to make the system. Figure 8
    • 7  Implementation routes In Figure 9, the four routes to transition are shown as Option (1) – one large centrally located district heating or CHP system, Option (2) – several small distributed μ-CHP (or other renewable energy) systems, and Option (3) – a mix of CHP and μ-CHP systems. Option (X) is extension of the latter option to the whole of Linlithgow. (b) (c) Figure 9 Option (1) Pros: - single boiler (district heat) or plant (CHP) room system; - centralized maintenance and control; Cons: - high cost, low competitiveness requires long-term investment; - extensive trenching, with consequent disruption and loss of time; - noise could be a problem Option (2) Pros: - multiple μ-CHP systems serving single or clusters of dwellings; - fast to install with minimal disruption - a practical, scalable distributed energy supply system; - can positively impact built asset value, will attract subsidies; Cons: - requires space heating, hot water and electrical power demand to be balanced. Option (3) Pros: - mix and match flexibility, freedom of choice for end-users; - a more complex solution that is likely to deliver best performance; - there are clear benefits as an interim, learning process; Cons: - requires space heating, hot water and electrical power demand to be balanced. Option (X) Pros: - scaled up combination of Options (2) and / or (3) for all of Linlithdow; - rate of progress down to the individual; - can accommodate other renewables. - redundancy for grid independence; Cons: - can not be indecisive if Linlithgow is to attract maximum subsidies; - the utilities will hate this; they will fight it tooth and nail.
    • 8  Baseline survey of the location The survey was set up to provide a better understanding of energy use and energy efficiency in domestic and non-domestic buildings in the Linlithgow Cross area. Its purpose was to enable identification of the potential for improvements in the energy efficiency of these homes, together with the feasibility of installing on-site energy generating technologies. Moreover, the results have helped to identify opportunities for domestic CO2 reduction measures that would be compatible for this conservation area with a predominance of traditionally built properties. Methods used to establish the baseline survey The first step in establishing the energy consumption baseline was to obtain energy specific household data, to assist in planning and estimating the rating and size of the equipment required to reduce CO2 emission and energy bills. Unfortunately, residential, commercial and industrial data was not available at the municipal level or from utility companies, so our reliance was on first-hand estimates from a door-to- door building energy survey and, where none was available, information obtained from reliable sources such as the Scottish House Condition Survey [8] for similar building types, ages and sizes. Data used in the study was acquired using a survey questionnaire, which was distributed by hand to the 370 households and businesses in the Linlithgow Cross target area – see Figure 11. The survey was conducted through a structured interview and questionnaire. Data collection for the Linlithgow project began the week of 11th December 2013 and finished at the end of January 2014. The number of responses obtained was 90 (24.3%), with the remaining majority of 280 households opting out of a response for some reason. West Lothian Council also provided information for council-owned buildings such as Burgh Halls, Low Port Primary School, Low Port Centre, the Library and County Buildings. Data for St Michaels Parish Church and Cross House was kindly provided by Mr Chris Gunstone. Energy consumption for households was estimated from monthly electricity bills by using the price of electricity at the time of survey. A sample of the questionnaire is attached as Appendix 1. The survey gathered additional information from respondee households that enabled us to draw conclusions about energy consumption, physical state of the household, the number of occupants, heated floor area, the year / period of construction, previous renovations and temperature management. Figure 11 presents the map of the Linlithgow Cross area where questionnaire data had been successfully collected and also indicates places from where we did not get a response. The authors are grateful to Historic Scotland for providing energy data for Linlithgow Palace, the Ranger’s office, Gardener’s hut and a Cottage.
    • 9  Figure 10
    • 10  Figure 11
    • 11  Buildings disaggregated by type, age and size { Building type } Examining the types of dwelling helped to build a better picture of the energy efficiency of the housing stock. Flats and terraced houses are typically expected to have the lowest heat loss as a result of their smaller size and envelope exposure, while semi-detached and detached houses are thought to have the largest, as a consequence of having higher envelope exposure. Figure 12 below summarises the breakdown of property types. For the Linlithgow Cross Area, 28% of dwellings were upper flats, 23% were lower and mid-height flats, while detached, semi-detached and terraced house each accounted for 5, 6 and 7 percent respectively. The remaining 27% comprised business premises, cafés, hotels, restaurants and pubs. Figure 12 Figure 13 shows the disaggregated gas and electricity consumption for different dwelling types. For the range of of properties, the average consumption ranges from 10,000 to 23,100 kWh/yr for gas and 1,800 to 4,600 kWh/yr for electricity. Detached houses use the most gas and electricity at around 23,100 and 4,600 kWh/yr respectively. That’s about half the gas consumption of a semi-detached house or ground floor flat at around 10,000 kWh/yr and 10,300 kWh/yr for gas and 3,400 and 2,800 kWh/yr respectively for electricity. The higher consumption of a large detached house, accommodating more occupants such as a family with young children, is not unexpected. Average gas consumption for Upper and mid-height flats, and terraced houses accounted for 14,200, 15,100 and 12,500 kWh/yr respectively. The lowest average electricity consumption for a flat was about 1,800kWh. 5.3 20.1 28.3 6.3 2.1 1.1 1.3 7.4 23.0 0.3 2.6 2.1 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Detached House Business premises Upper Flat Semi-Detached House Café Restaurant Pub Terraced Stock of flats Hotel Ground Flat Bigger Business premises Types of premises [%]
    • 12  Figure 13 Compared to other dwelling types, semi-detached houses and ground floor flats appear to consume proportionately more electricity than gas. It is not immediately clear why this should be so. The most common property in the Linlithgow Cross area is the 3 bedroom dwelling (40%). 16% of dwellings had one bedroom, 27% had two bedrooms and 17% had four or more, see Figure 14.. Figure 14 If the number of rooms in a dwelling is an indicator of the number of occupants, then one would expect energy consumption to increase in proportion to the number of rooms. This appears to be the case in Figure 15, the exception being the 4 room dwelling where gas (but not electricity) consumption appears to be uncharacteristically low. Again, the precise reason for this is now known but it is likely to be associated with demographic changes. 23.1 10.3 10.0 12.5 15.1 14.2 01020 Detached House Ground flat Semi-detached Flat Terraced-House Upper flat Thousands of kWh/yr Average gas consumption 16.4 26.5 39.7 11.1 3.1 3.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1 bedrooms 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 5 bedrooms Others Percentage of common propery types 4.6 2.8 3.4 1.8 3.3 3.2 0 2 4 6 Thousands of kWh/yr Electricity consumption
    • 13  Figure 15 { Building age and conservation status } A key factor in determining the energy performance of a building is the year of its construction. The period in which a building was built reflects different building codes and technology levels; it is therefore a determining factor in the energy consumption equation. Newer houses have to conform to stricter energy efficiency standards and therefore they would be expected to use less energy compared to older dwellings that are less energy efficient. Figure 16 shows the years of construction of the buildings surveyed. Amongst these, the highest proportion 44% were constructed before 1920 and more than half before 1945, significantly predating the use of thermal insulation in this country. The second most active period of construction was after the end of World War 2, between 1946 and 1980. The more recent (1981-2001) and (2001-2014) periods were the least active for construction in the Linlithgow Cross area. Figure 16 10.2 12.2 14.9 12.4 25.0 0102030 1 2 3 4 5 or more Thousands Gas consumption [kWh/yr] 44 7 39 7 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 Before 1920 1920-1945 1946-1980 1981-2000 After 2001 Age of dwellings 1.4 2.7 3.1 3.4 4.8 0 2 4 6 Thousands Electricity consumption kWh/yr
    • 14  10% of the buildings surveyed were built after 1981 and should be more energy efficient as they have had to comply with more stringent Building Regulations. By contrast, 90% were built before the first thermal insulation requirements came formally into effect in 1979. It can be reasonably assumed, therefore that all buildings predating 1980 have little or no insulation, i.e., they possess either solid or hard to treat cavity walls. This makes the Linlithgow Cross area a prime candidate for remedial action, using either External Wall Insulation (EWI) where permissable and Internal Wall Insulation (IWI) for the rest. A fabric first strategy is essential if we are to achieve a balanced, economically optimised solution. { Building floor area } Figure 17 shows that, on average, dwellings built during the periods1920-1945 and 1981-2000 were the largest, with a mean useable floor area of more than 115 m². What is surprising is they also had the lowest gas consumption per square meter. The reason for this appears to be that the occupants in many of these properties are couples or single persons who only need to heat the rooms most used. Figure 17 Dwellings built between 1920-1945 are in most cases heated by electricity. On average dwellings built between 1946-1980 and after 2001 had significantly smaller floor areas compared to those dating back to other periods in time. In the case of dwellings built between 1946-1980, despite the small heated areas, occupants spent significant sums of money for gas heating. This high demand for heat is evidence of the poor insulation standard that characterizes these dwellings and, in some cases, the type of occupancy (e.g., Vennel). For dwellings post 2001, high gas consumption is an anomaly that can only be explained by a different type type of occupancy, 85.5 118.2 62.3 121.7 61 40.4 36.6 33.8 22.1 20.2 184 114.8 192.9 113.8 150.2 0 50 100 150 200 250 Before 1920 1920-1945 1946-1980 1981-2000 After 2001 Average floor area[m² ] Electricity [kWh/yr/m² ] Gas [kWh/yr/m² ]
    • 15  including young who need to heat the dwelling for longer periods and use significant amounts of hot water. Dwellings built before 1920 were on average around 85 m² in area and comprise around 43% of the Linlithgow Cross area. As can be seen from Figure 14, these dwellings are high consumers of both gas and electricity. This is commensurate with their aged status and conservation requirements that mitigate against simple upgrades. Although quality of construction has improved over time, energy efficiency does not appear to be as good as one might expect. Since the 1980s energy efficiency standards have become mandatory in the Building Regulations. Homes built after 1980 would typically have 100 mm of loft insulation and 40 mm of wall insulation. Homes built since 2006 feature around 270 mm of loft insulation, 150 mm of cavity wall insulation and a B rated boiler. Energy use and carbon emission summaries { Summary of energy use } In common with most homes, gas is the main heating fuel. Although gas is a fossil fuel it produces significantly lower CO2 emissions compared to electricity; gas central heating is generally one of the most efficient methods of space heating. It is clear that survey respondents with electric heating have relatively high heating bills and they produce similarly high CO2 emissions, since conventional electric heating is very inefficient and more expensive than gas heating. The existence of conventional electric heating systems represents an opportunity to convert directly to renewable electricity generation once it becomes less expensive and readily available. In the meantime, solar PV and electrically powered heat pumps can provide important benefits. The heated area of a dwelling is defined as the internal space within the exterior walls of a dwelling that is heated. This excludes garages, cold attics and basements. Figure 18 presents the heated area results for the Linlithgow Cross area. 34% of the buildings had a heated area of less than 56 m², and 23% had areas larger than 90 m². The largest proportion of dwellings, around 43% had a heated floor area of between 57 to 90 m². 34% 43% 17% 6% Heated area of dwellings 56m² or less 57 to 90m² 91-150m² 151 or more m² Figure 18
    • 16  Property size is characterised by the floor area, but equally, the number of bedrooms in a property is an indicator of size. This is also considered in Figure 19, which plots the average gas and electricity use against the floor area in m2. Figure 19 The plot to the left shows that the average gas consumption per square meter is higher for properties with a small floor area. For example, properties with a floor area of less than 50 m2 use around 45% more than the average gas consumption across all of the properties. They also use 25% more electricity than the average for Linlithgow Cross. Properties in the higher size band (51-100 square meters) use less gas but slightly more electricity. In absolute terms, larger homes consume more energy, because of the larger space to be heated, the generally larger number of occupants and the larger number of installed appliances; however, the data suggests that energy consumption per square meter decreases as property size increases. We conclude from this that there is a minimum energy requirement that all properties have, such as for refrigeration and cooking, or heating the main living areas, and an additional amount that is more closely linked to property size. { Summary of CO2 emissions } In 2013, buildings in the Linlithgow Cross area produced an estimated 2,370 tonnes of CO2 from gas and electricity use. The breakdown of these emissions by source is summarized in Figures 20 for domestic properties. Table 1 provides similar information for non-domestic properties, averaged per property and also the totals per aggregated property type. Figure 21 shows the average gas and electricity consumption for different non-domestic building types. This information should be read in tandem with the average gas and electricity consumptions for the different property types in Table 2, to get a full measure of the differences between domestic and non-domestic building types. 272.8 182.3 134.0 91.7 126.8 109.0 0100200300 50 or less 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-250 Over 250 Gas consumption, [kWh/m²/yr] 38.9 41.3 31.2 20.6 17.1 21.1 0 20 40 60 Electricity consumption [kWh/m²/yr]
    • 17  Figure 20 Table 1. Summary of non-domestic energy use and carbon emissions. Type property Total CO2 emission [tCO2/year] Average CO2 emission [tCO2/year] Total electricity consumption [kWh/year] Total gas consumption [kWh/year] Business premises 1,086.5 13.0 1,044,078 3,377,447 Café 84.5 10.5 160,900 69,500 Hotel 4.8 4.8 20,000 105,769 Pub 33.0 6.6 49,800 58,846 Restaurant 47.0 11.8 89,400 40,769 Figure 21 132 31.5 74.9 270.8 122.6 430.3 0200400600 Detached House Ground flat Semi-detached Flat Terraced-House Upper flat Total CO2 emssion [tCO2/yr] 40.7 8.7 105.8 11.8 10.2 050100150 Thousands kWh/yr Average gas consumption 6.3 3.2 3.3 3.1 4.2 4.1 0 2 4 6 8 Average CO2 emission [tCO2/yr] 12.6 20.1 20.0 10.0 22.4 0 10 20 Business premisses Café Hotel Pub Restaurant Thousands kWh/yr Average electricity consumption
    • 18  Table 2. Summary of cumulative and average gas and electricity use for all building types considered in the Linlithgow Cross area survey. Domestic properties No. of Buildings Building type Avg kWh Electricity/yr Avg kWh Gas/yr. Electricity kWh/m2/yr Gas kWh/m2/yr Avg dev Electricity Avg dev Gas 107 Upper Flat 3,249.6 14,448.4 41.5 272.4 16.8 77.5 87 Stock of flats 1,810.9 12,533.2 30.4 237.3 7.1 92.1 10 Ground Flat 2,827.0 10,276.9 66.7 352.6 15.4 44.3 28 Terraced 3,305.7 15,054.0 29.3 140.0 10.6 45.4 24 Semi-det House 7,726.1 14,133.8 98.6 189.0 105.0 62.3 20 Detached House 3,778.0 18,878.6 31.9 161.4 12.5 61.9 Non-domestic properties No. of Buildings Building type Avg kWh Electricity/yr Avg kWh Gas/yr. Electricity kWh/m2/yr Gas kWh/m2/yr Avg dev Electricity Avg dev Gas 8 Café 20,112.5 8,687.5 2,086.6 1010.0 151.9 97.0 4 Restaurant 30,375.0 10,192.3 349.4 132.0 142.6 43.8 5 Pub 9,960.0 11,769.2 94.7 117.4 26.4 101.0 1 Hotel 20,000.0 105,769.2 66.7 352.6 0.0 0.0 76 Business 5,083.9 7,238.9 81.1 122.5 32.9 126.5 8 Large Business 86,161.3 363,229.2 81.5 434.8 27.5 239.2
    • 19  Energy, carbon and cost maps The amount of energy used for space heating depends on the heat gains and losses of the building, which in turn are determined by the quality of its construction, architecture and location on the one hand and by what the building is used for and the occupants on the other. The parameters that govern space heating energy demand are: the quality of insulation used in the building envelope (walls, roof, floor, doors and windows), unregulated, uncontrolled infiltration of air through the envelope, the building type and the use it is put to, optimal use (or rejection) of solar gain, local climate and, importantly, occupant behaviour. In general, older households tend to consume more energy than newer households, especially for space heating. Moreover, families large and small tend to use substantial amounts of hot water and electricity. The number of occupants in the dwelling is an important parameter that influences energy use. In dwellings where there is always somebody at home during the day, more energy is used than in houses where nobody is at home during the day, or where the presence of people during the day varies. This also applies to weekends: in houses where there is always somebody at home more energy is used. More energy is used in larger and older households. It seems that more energy is used in privately rented accommodation than in those with socially subsidised rent or privately owned. This could be due to poor build quality in privately rented dwellings. In addition, more energy is used in accommodation where heating is included in the rent. The survey has revealed significant variations in the average gas and electricity consumptions linked to different property attributes and household characteristics. It suggests that property size is the strongest driver of gas consumption, as this variable shows the greatest variation between group medians. The link between household characteristics and electricity consumption is similar to that for gas, although there is no clear link between property age and electricity consumption, unlike for gas. The results show there is a lot of variation in consumption that cannot be explained purely by any single property attribute or household characteristic. To summarise, the work shows that, of all the variables considered, property size has the greatest influence on gas consumption. Other physical attributes and household characteristics help explain some of the variation but there remains a significant amount of variation that is not so easily explained. Our conclusion is that the inexplicable variations are due to the differences between occupants. This inadequacy is reflected in the current tools and yardsticks, such as the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) and the Energy Efficiency Rating (EPC) that are in use today. These tools and measures may provide approximate indications of
    • 20  whether or not the amount of insulation used or the type of boiler that has been installed meet the compliance norms stipulated in the Building Regulations, but they will not tell you how much energy the dwelling will consume or how much carbon will be released into the atmosphere when the house is occupied, or if these important measures of sustainability will be the same for a different occupant. The present study seeks to assess energy use and carbon emissions as they are today, and what they might become following the switch to one or more locally produced, distributed energy supply systems – not at the scale of individual buildings but at the scale of a community. As a consequence, we propose to introduce a new ‘Community Efficiency Rating (CER) that is no longer linked to SAP or rdSAP as used to determine conventional EPC ratings (A, B, . . ., G), but rather linked to the absolute energy use in kWh/m2/yr to determine new CER ratings (AEQ, BEQ, . . ., GEQ) as illustrated in Figure 22 below: Figure 22 The CER, which rates both the efficiency of the building and its occupants has been used in Figures 23-29 to uniquely define the annual energy consumption, carbon emissions and cost baselines for every building in the Linlithgow Cross area on a per square meter and per building basis.
    • 21  Figure 23
    • 22  Figure 24
    • 23  Figure 25
    • 24  Figure 26
    • 25  Figure 27
    • 26  Figure 28
    • 27  Figure 29
    • 28  The buildings of Linlithgow Cross1 1 The top right hand corner of each thumbprint is colour coded using the CER scale in Figure 22.
    • 29 
    • 30  Off-grid energy supply options Benefits to the community Renewable heat technologies, combined with high quality, affordable insulation, offer significant benefits to the community. These benefits are summarized as follows: { District heating / biomass boiler } Generates heat by burning organic material, such as wood, straw, dedicated energy crops, sewage sludge and animal litter. Pros: Low carbon, cleaner than fossil fuels; can convert waste into energy, helping to deal with waste; can be used to burn waste products. Cons: Overall the process can be expensive; some methane and CO2 are emitted during production. { Combined heat and power (CHP) } Combined Heat and Power (CHP) is the on-site generation of electricity and the use of the heat that is produced as a by-product. Pros: Increased efficiency. CHP systems act as energy multiplier that saves energy, saves money and reduces carbon emissions by up to 30%; Increased reliability. System is independent of the grid and therefore immune to grid-level blackouts; The technology is available and in use today. • Producing and distributing thermal energy at a local level is inherently efficient in converting primary energy into usable energy, particularly when combined with power generation through CHP. This higher efficiency leads to lower costs over the long term, especially when using local fuels High efficiency, low cost • The ability of district energy networks to take heat from multiple sources, fuels, and technologies makes it very flexible. Communities have a more secure energy supply as they are not solely dependent on a single source or imported fuel supplies. Flexibility and resilience • High resource efficiency in using fossil fuels and the ability to make use of renewable fuels reduces carbon emissions. District energy systems technologies such as heat pumps, fuel cells, or biofuels can be easily and rapidly retrofitted, without the need to install equipment in each building. Reducing carbon emissions
    • 31  Cons: Only suitable where there is a need for both electricity and hot water on site; heating and electricity demand must remain fairly consistent; it can be capital intensive; not long term sustainable when based on fossil fuel technology. { Ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) } Use pipes that are buried in the garden to extract heat from the ground. This heat can then be used to heat radiators, underfloor or warm air heating systems and hot water in the home. Pros: A ground source heat could lower your CO2 emissions if replacing a conventional heating system; they can provide hot water as well as heat; they need little maintenance (they're called ‘fit and forget’ technology. Cons: You still need electricity to drive the pump, so a ground source heat pump will never have a zero-carbon footprint unless used with a renewable source like solar panels (photovoltaic) or wind sourced electricity; ground works are required to install a ground source heat pump. { Air-source heat pumps (ASHPs) } Converting low-level heat, occurring naturally in the air, into high-grade heat. System is attached to the outside of buildings. Pros: Can heat your home and provide and hot water; they need little maintenance (they're called ‘fit and forget’ technology); can be easier to install than a ground source heat pump, though heating efficiency may be lower. Cons: You still need electricity to drive the pump, so an air source heat pump will never have a zero-carbon footprint unless used with a renewable source like solar panels (photovoltaic) or wind sourced electricity; you will need space for the external unit outside your house or in your garden. {Water-source heat pumps (WSHPs)} Produces heat in a similar way to ground source systems. Pipes are submerged in a river, stream or lake, where temperatures remain at a relatively constant level of between 7 and 12 degrees. Liquid (usually brine) in the pipes absorbs the heat. This heat is passed to a heat pump located inside the house. Pros: Low operating costs; life span of fifteen years; environmentally-friendly; energy-efficient; occupy minimal space; operate independently of weather. Cons: Additional maintenance; some portion of the electricity required is supplied to the heat pumps; high purchase and installation costs; slow heating. {External and Internal Wall Insulation (EWI / IWI)} This pre-eminent energy demand reduction measure is part of the optimum solution. Pros: A complementary solution that is easy to apply; It will reduce overall cost. Cons: GD subsidy limited to £500 in Scotland, compared to £4,000 in rest of the UK. It is anticipated that ECO subsidy in Scotland could correct this imbalance.
    • 32  The solutions considered Six companies considered to be the market leaders in off-grid energy supply were invited to provide a specification and to quote for a District Heating and / or CHP system for the Linlithgow Cross area. They were advised their proposals should be based on 250,000 m2 gross area, 1,000 people and 400 dwellings. In addition to this, Dynamic Insulation Solutions Ltd was invited to present their new VSDI technology. This section summarises their various responses. 1 FINNING UK LTD Division: Finning Power Systems 688-689 Stirling Road Slough SL1 4ST, UK www.finning.co.uk Contact: Mr David Andrews Technologies Development Manager T: +44 (0)1753 497300 M: +44 (0)7714 920610 dandrews@finning.co.uk plus POWERPIPE™ SYSTEMS AV Ellesbovägen 101 425 02 Hisings Kärra, Sweden www.powerpipe.se Contact: Mr Philippe Terrien Country Manager M: +44 (0)7557 016343 philippe.terrien@powerpipe.se Specification Large CHP system to supply an after diversity heat load of say 7 kWth per house, giving 7 x 400 = 2,800 kWth. Typically you would provide half of this heat load from the CHP so you are looking at a peak heat output from the CHP of 1,400 kWth. This should provide 95% of the total annual heat load, with the balance from the existing gas boiler. This would require a 1,400 kWe electrical gas engine CHP unit. You would also need a peak boiler plus a 12 hour heat store. Technology used Based on CAT® CG170 gas generator sets + Powerpipe™ heat transmission network.
    • 33  2 VITAL ENERGI LTD Century House, Roman Road Blackburn, Lancashire United Kingdom, BB1 2LD T: +44 (0) 1254 296 000 F: +44 (0) 1254 296 040 www.vitalenergi.co.uk Contact 1: Mr Brendan Clancy Business Development Manager M: +44 (0)7885 333819 Brendan.Clancy@vitalenergi.co.uk Contact 2: Mr Scott Robertson Director, Energetic PM Ltd M: 078856 48854 T: 018907 81463 / 018907 60156 www.energeticpm.com Specification 'Heat only' district heating system. Design and install a new Biomass Energy Centre, LTHW distribution network (e.g., ala Powerpipe™ Systems), and Heat Interface Units (HIUs) to the 400 existing residential properties and various community and council owned properties. The proposed Energy Centre design includes a biomass boiler and gas fired boilers to meet the peak and standby demands, complete with all associated plant and systems. Technology used Main Plant: 1 off 750kW Biomass Pellet Boiler; 3 off 1.8MW Gas Boilers; 1 off 50m³ Thermal store. Key assumptions: Installation of HIU’s and metering in the 400 existing residential properties; Installations and modification off 400 IHUs to existing residential properties; Installation of DH Sub-stations and metering in a number of community and commercial properties. Works by others: Utility supplies into the energy centre (gas if required, water, electricity); Civil Engineering and Builder works associated with the installation of the District Heating Network (Trenching); Planning Applications; Storage Site rental; Land Purchase; Local Wayleaves; Air Dispersion Modelling.
    • 34  3 CERAMIC FUEL CELLS LTD The Manor House Howbery Park Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8BA United Kingdom www.cfcl.com.au www.bluegen.info Contact: Mr Robert Morgan UK Manager T: +44 (0)1491 822 832 M: +44 (0)7432 672239 Robert.Morgan@cfcl.com.au Specification BlueGEN® is a fuel cell based micro-CHP system that is 60% efficient in producing electricity from gas supplied from the grid and is therefore ideal for use in a CHP scheme where you may be looking for more electrical power generation than heat generation. BlueGEN® can create 1.5kW of electricity per hour, 36 KWh per day and over 13,000 KWh per year. If you are trying to include up to 400 homes in the scheme then logically each BlueGEN® system should serve a total of 4 homes, on the assumption that each home uses about 3,250 kWh of electricity per year - as it has an average of 2.5 occupants. The BlueGEN® would meet nearly 100% of their annual electricity requirement, typically at half the price of current grid supplied electricity. BlueGEN® also produces over 5,000 kWh of useful heat that could be contributing to a district heating scheme or other uses where water is being heated. The thermal integration of the BlueGEN® would be possible on this project but costing it up is rather difficult at this stage as the scale of consolidating the thermal output is much greater than we are currently used to. Technology used Each BlueGEN® system to serve 4 houses would cost about £ 14,750. Installation currently costs about £2,000 per BlueGEN® - but economies of scale might be possible on this project, depending on their location and thermal integration together. Thermal integration of the BlueGEN® is important to meet MCS requirements for micro-CHP. The feed in tariff (FIT) for each BlueGEN® is over £2,000 per system per year so for 100 systems a payment of £200,000 per year would be granted by the government. This is in addition to the savings on current electricity and hot water/heating cost that could also be achieved within the project. In summary: • Significant savings on the current community electricity and heating costs. • Significant savings on the current community carbon emissions.
    • 35  4 IPOWER ENERGY LTD 17 Kenilworth Road Bridge of Allan Stirling FK9 4DU www.ipoweruk.com Contact: Mr Jon Cape Managing Director M: +44 (0)7577 564092 Skype: joncape jon.cape@ipoweruk.com Specification Similar to the above. iPower suggest that the BlueGen® micro-CHP system is typically a complement to, not an alternative to other low carbon investments including conventional gas CHP, biomass, heat pumps, solar PV etc. BlueGen® itself is either an energy efficiency proposition or in addition a renewable proposition. If renewable gas (such as that offered by Ecotricity) is specified it is a renewable proposition. On a standalone basis, BlueGen® Suits properties with an electrical load of 20-.‐ 80,000 kWh per annum gas supply, a heating load which can use heat generated by a fuel cell (typically provision of preheated water to reduce the cost of operating a conventional gas boiler, but integration with heat pump or biomass works well also). Technology used Supply cost for single purchase: £17,000. Volume discounts available. Otherwise as above, but the minimum installation cost is £2,500 per BlueGEN® unit.
    • 36  5 CTC ENERTECH GROUP LTD Ten Acres Berry Hill Industrial Estate Droitwich Spa Worcestershire WR9 9BP www.CTC-UK.com Contact: Mr Cliff Arnold General Manager (CTC Division) T: +44(0)1905 791610 D: +44(0)1905 791635 M: +44(0)7896 366530 Cliff.Arnold@CTC-UK.com Specification GSHP 'heat only' solution based on 3 dwelling types (2 bed apartment, 3 bed semi- detached and 5 bed detached) for use to provide a rough estimate for the residences in the target area. (the following estimates are based on an assumed 150 flats, 150 semis and 100 detached homes / premises). Technology used 150 off 2 bed cost estimate: CTC EcoHeat 306™, Type: brine / water, COP 5.1 Wattage at 0/35 : heat: 5.9 kW electric: 1.3 kW Heat pump system £4,300 Metering pack £340.00 Internet surveillance control £873.00 Pipe communication £500.00 £6,013 x 150 = £901,950 150 off 3 bed cost estimate: CTC EcoHeat™ 312, Type: brine / water, COP 5.1 Wattage at 0/35 : heat: 11.8 kW electric: 2.5 kW Heat pump system £5,000 Metering pack £340.00 Internet surveillance control £873.00 Pipe communication £500.00 £6,713 x 150 = £1,006,950 100 off 5 bed cost estimate: CTC EcoHeat™ 424, Type: brine / water, COP 4.9 Wattage at 0/35 : heat: 29 kW electric: 6.4 kW Heat pump system £10,720 Metering pack £460.00 Internet surveillance control £873.00 Pipe communication £1,000.00 £13,503 x 100 = £1,006,950
    • 37  6 SAV UK LTD Scandia House, Boundary Rd, Woking, Surrey GU21 5BX T: 01483 771 910 F: 01483 227 519 info@sav-systems.com www.sav-systems.com Contact 1: Priscila Snook Internal Sales, SAV SYSTEMS Scandia House, Boundary Rd Woking,Surrey, GU21 5BX T: 01483 227516 priscila.snook@sav-systems.com Contact 2: Simon Kerr M: 07768 760 515 simon@dbsales.co.uk www.dbsaltd.co.uk Specification Cluster system using XRGI 20G LoadTracker™ CHP Energy units. • Quotation covers the commissioning of the LoadTracker™ CHP Energy Centre • Installation estimate - within the quote, the recommended of Aston Cord as a preferred installer is based on previous high standard installation work by this firm. (Any contract that the client enters into with Aston Cord to install the CHP system is solely between the client and Aston Cord and does not make SAV responsible for any issues that may occur with the installation, or if issues occur at a later date.) Technology used 13 of 4 x LoadTracker™ XRGI 20G clusters (40-80 kWe each) with Q60; 1 x CHP heat storage vessel 3000 litres, 8 sensor pockets, 80 mm connections, 6 bar; 1 x Pump Magna1 65-120F with flanges; Installation kit for 4 x CHP 2 x Q-network Storage Control; 1 x Load Sharer; 1 x 2 port Esbe 3F valve 65 mm Kvs 90; 1 x Actuator 95M for 3F valves, 230 V, 60 seconds; 1 x Danfoss ECL 310; 1 x Danfoss ECL program 260; 1 x Danfoss ECL base part; 2 x Danfoss ECL temperature sensor (Includes standard commissioning, equipment handover and demonstration, application to the District Network Operator (DNO) for approval of the G59/2 monitoring relays and installation costs). £190,750 each
    • 38  7 DYNAMIC INSULATION SOLUTIONS LTD (DYINSO) Scarview Springfield Drive, Kirkwall, Orkney, KW15 1XU enquiries@dynamicinsulationsolutions.com Contact: Terry O’Hara Scarview Springfield Drive, Kirkwall, Orkney, KW15 1XU T: terry@dynamicinsulationsolutions.com Specification Retrofitted Void Space Dynamic Insulation (VSDI) for solid and hard to treat wall, available in two format: • External Wall Insulation (EWI) where permitted; • Internal Wall Insulation (IWI) in all other cases. VSDI is new type of Dynamic Insulation (DI) technology that is currently being developed by DYINSO and EWI / IWI variants are currently being tested and evaluated by Dr Imbabi2 and his team at the University of Aberdeen. There are several advantages that VSDI superinsulation will provide in comparison to other competing DI products such as Jablite’s dynamic wall insulation.The advantages include simplicity of form and application, thinness, low cost, hot and cold climate energy demand reduction (important from the perspective of extant climate change and adaptation), full building envelope coverage, versatility as a passive, active or hybrid product and high indoor air quality. Technology used Full envelope retrofit with the flexibility to achieve any desired external envelope dynamic U-Value for all building types, including flats, terraced, semi-detached dwellings, business premises and municipal buildings. VSDI will reduce fabric heat loss by 50% of mandatory requirements, or alternatively reduce the thickness and volume of material used in conventional EWI / IWI applications by 50%. In all cases the minimum reduction in cost compared to conventional EWI / IWI solutions will be no less than 25%. £7,500 on average per dwelling (estimated). 2 Declaration of interest: Dr Imbabi is also a shareholder in this company.
    • 39  Incentives & finance models Transition Linlithgow's principal purpose in commissioning this study is to identify the optimal energy solution for Linlithgow in terms of the 'least carbon fuel cost'. The delivery of this solution will require time to complete. Key to success is an optimal infrastructure that is affordable in the short term and sustainable over the long term. Conventional financing and funding enterprise models involve energy production and distribution by intermediary 'middlemen' whose business is to sell energy at a profit for the benefit of investors. The resulting convention of 'least £ cost', etc., using the familiar interest-bearing debt and 'for profit' equity as financial capital means that optimal least carbon fuel cost policies cannot be conventionally privately financed and funded. One of the aspirations of the Linlithgow Natural Grid initiative is to develop and implement, if feasible, a complementary financing and funding model that improves upon the conventional model in terms of outcome for all stakeholders. Government-incentives The relevant incentives that are currently available include the Feed In Tariff Scheme (FITS), Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI), Green Deal (GD) and The Energy Company Obligation (ECO). These will be very briefly outlined in this section. { FITS } FITS was introduced on 1 April 2010 and replaced UK government grants as the main financial incentive to encourage uptake of renewable electricity-generating technologies. Most domestic technologies qualify for the scheme, including: • solar electricity (PV) (roof mounted or stand alone) • wind turbines (building mounted or free standing) • hydroelectricity • anaerobic digesters • micro combined heat and power (μ-CHP). Table 4. Summary of hydro, wind and microCHP tariffs: Technology Tariff band (kW capacity) Tariffs up until 31 March 2014 Hydro <15 22.23p/kWh >15 to <100 20.76p/kWh Wind <1.5 22.23p/kWh >1.5 to <15 22.23p/kWh >15 to <100 22.23p/kWh Micro-CHP <2kW 13.24p/kWh
    • 40  Go to http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generating-energy/Getting-money- back/Feed-In-Tariffs-scheme-FITs for further information. { RHI } This is a UK Government scheme set up to encourage uptake of renewable heat technologies among householders, communities and businesses through the provision of financial incentives. The two phases to introduction of the RHI are: Phase 1: the introduction of the RHI for non-domestic installations in the industrial, business and public sectors. Phase 2: the domestic element of the RHI, is expected to be introduced in spring 2014 following the consultation published in September 2012 and more recently the UK Government Heat Strategy. Phase 2 will support air source heat pumps (ASHP), biomass systems, ground source heat pumps (GSHP) and solar thermal technologies. The support rates will vary depending on the technology installed. Table 5. RHI tariffs for currently accepted technologies. Air source heat pump Biomass Ground source heat pump Solar thermal Tariff (p/kWh renewable heat) 7.3 12.2a 18.8 19.2 a. This amount is for a small domestic biomass boiler. For large installations rated at >1000 kW the revise tariff is 2 p/kWh. Go to http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generating-energy/Getting-money- back/Renewable-Heat-Incentive-RHI for further informatio. { GD / ECO } GD is a UK government initiative. It was launched by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) on 1st October 2012 to provide loans for energy saving measures for properties in Great Britain and was officially launched in January 2013. Its relevance to Linlithgow lies primarily in the amount of cashback available for solid wall insulation, which on 13th December 2013 rose from £650 to £4,000 (if more than 50% of the external wall area is insulated) in the rest of the UK. In Scotland the Green Homes Cashback Scheme offers £1,200 (up to £500 for insulation, £400 for a boiler and £300 for other measures). The ECO for the big six energy suppliers was also launched in early 2013. It is in three parts: The Affordable Warmth Obligation, to provide heating and insulation improvements for low-income and vulnerable households (but social housing tenants are not eligible for affordable warmth).
    • 41  The Carbon Saving Obligation, to provide funding to insulate solid-walled properties (internal and external wall insulation) and those with ‘hard-to-treat’ cavity walls. This is not means-tested but can be used in conjunction with the Green Deal. The Carbon Saving Communities Obligation, to provide insulation measures to people living in the bottom 15% of the UK's most deprived areas. Of the expected investment by suppliers of £1.3bn per year, there will be a 75:25 split between the carbon and affordable warmth obligations. Go to http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Take-action/Find-a-grant/Green-Deal-and- ECO for further information on the Green Deal. Go to http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Take-action/Find-a-grant/Green-Deal-and- ECO for further information on ECO. Asset value enhancement In an ideal world, we would all be living and working in optimally designed, highly energy efficient homes and buildings. Better still, these features would come to us at no extra cost. As this is not yet an ideal world, a powerful incentive for homeowners and businesses to invest in energy efficiency improvements is the add-on value that such improvements can bring to the value of their property. Understand the homeowner’s renovation decision process is a subject of increasing interest [9]. In this vein, DECC commissioned a large-scale study to look at the effect of EPC ratings on house prices [10]. The findings of this study are compelling and form the basis of our attempt to quantify this aspect for the Linlithgow Cross properties that we are looking at. The result of the exercise is summarized in Table 6. It’s implications are best illustrated by example. Consider 109A High Street Linlithgow in Figure 30. Figure 30 - This property is rated at EEQ on the CER scale; - The current value of the property is £ 110,000; - Following upgrade it’s rating will rise to BEQ; - It’s resale value will appreciate by around £15,000; - This is an additional gain on sale of the property;
    • 42  Table 6. Achievable asset value enhancements arising from energy efficiency improvements across a range of property values.
    • 43  Complementary Financing & Funding The basic aim is to create a community utility that owns in common and operates whatever new infrastructure is to be created in Linlithgow. The legal details are not within the scope of this study but it is envisaged that – within a simple consensual and collaborative framework agreement – an association of local energy users may be brought together with an association of energy service providers and an association of energy investors in an informal 'multi-stakeholder co- operative'. The innovation, which is in fact based upon financial instruments which pre-date modern finance capital, is the use of a prepay energy credit instrument. This is simply an energy credit issued by the proposed utility to investors at a discount in exchange for value and which is returnable – as a means of payment complementary to conventional £ - by consumers in payment for energy supplied. For the Linlithgow utility prepay energy credits will provide an interest free 'energy loan', while for the investor it allows a return in energy, which will rise (or fall) in value with the energy price in £, but which may always be returned in payment for energy by a Linlithgow energy consumer. The outcome is that Linlithgow energy projects which save carbon fuel may be funded by direct – 'Peer to Asset' – energy loan investment in the value of the future carbon fuel savings which arise from these projects. We envisage the possibility of a Linlithgow 'energy pool' fund dedicated to investment through 'energy loans' directly in a pipeline of energy efficiency and renewable energy schemes in order of priorities outlined in this proposal, but subject to more detailed appraisals on a case by case basis. Finally, the introduction of energy credits opens up attractive policy options. Rather than reducing the price of energy (which encourages wasteful use) any surplus will create an 'energy dividend' of energy credits which may be reinvested in further measures; used to address fuel poverty; and so on. Our ambition for Linlithgow The aim of Linlithgow Natural Grid is for Linlithgow to be independent in energy3. Irrespective of what system (or combination of systems) is used, our ambition is to deliver a minimum energy use, cost and carbon emission reductions of 50% for every property in the Linlithgow Cross area. The effect that this will have on future total energy cost and CO2 emissions is summarised in Figures 31 and 32 respectively. These figures are best viewed in light of the status quo in Figures 28 and 29. 3 Taken from the Founding Constitution of Linlithgow Natural Grid.
    • 44  Figure 31
    • 45  Figure 32
    • 46  The bottom line: specs & costs Quantitative evaluation This section outlines the performance specifications, capital and installation costs, the revenues accruing from the applicable incentive schemes and, where possible, payback times in years and the percentage Return of Investment (ROI). The latter assume that savings in the cost of energy are for the benefit of bill payers, and that interest rate, which is predicted to remain low for the foreseeable future, can be disregarded in ROI estimates. Where no income from incentives has been identified, it is assumed that payback and ROI are ‘indeterminate’. 1 FINNING UK LTD Description Large CHP system. Based on CAT® CG170 gas generator sets + piped heat transmission network. Design life (years) 204 Electrical power (kWe) 1,400 Electrical efficiency (%) 42% Heating power (kWth) 1,400 Heating Efficiency (%) 58% CO2 saving (Tonnes pa) 660 Capital cost, ex VAT (£) £2,840,0005 Maintenance, ex VAT (£) nil6 Subsidy 1 (GD/ECO) n/a Subsidy 2 (RHI) n/a Subsity 3 (FITS) n/a Subsidy 4 (other) n/a Payback (Years) Indeterminate ROI (%) Indeterminate 4 Equipment could run indefinitely, but would generally be replaced after 20 years with more efficient models. 5 Comprising £840k plant and ancilliaries + £2m transmission piping. 6 Included in the capital cost estimate.
    • 47  2 VITAL ENERGI LTD Description Heat only district heating system requiring the design and installation of a Biomass Energy Centre and LTHW distribution network. Design life (years) 20 Electrical power (kWe) n/a Electrical efficiency (%) n/a Heating power (kWth) 2,5507 Heating Efficiency (%) 75% CO2 saving (Tonnes pa) 9008 Capital cost, ex VAT (£) £5,894,1749 Maintenance, ex VAT (£ pa) nil10 Subsidy 1 (GD/ECO) n/a Subsidy 2 (RHI) £80,000 pa11 Subsity 3 (FITS) n/a Subsidy 4 (other) n/a Payback (Years) 196.5 ROI (%) ½% 7 Maximum rating, based on an estimated 1,500 kWhth annual peak heat load per dwelling. 8 Based on an average saving of 3 Tonnes/yr/dwelling and 75% heating efficiency – see http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,163182&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL. 9 Includes £2,744,320 piping but excludes 10,000m trenching cost. 10 Included in the capital cost estimate. 11 Based on 2p/kWhth and an over-generous10,000 kWhth per dwelling annual heat demand. This is at odds with the peak demand of 1.5MWhth design capacity, so the figure is probably more like £30,000 pa.
    • 48  3 CERAMIC FUEL CELLS LTD Description BlueGEN® fuel cell based μ-CHP system that is 60% efficient in producing electricity from gas supplied from the grid. Design life (years) 10 Electrical power (kWe) 150 Electrical efficiency (%) 60% Heating power (kWth) 58 Heating Efficiency (%) 25% CO2 saving (Tonnes pa) 350-500 Capital cost, ex VAT (£) £1,675,000 Maintenance, ex VAT (£ pa) £450 Subsidy 1 (GD/ECO) n/a Subsidy 2 (RHI) n/a Subsity 3 (FITS) £200,000 pa12 Subsidy 4 (other) n/a Payback (Years) 9.3 ROI (%) 11% 12 Guaranteed for 10 years.
    • 49  4 IPOWER ENERGY LTD Description BlueGEN® fuel cell based μ-CHP system that is 60% efficient in producing electricity from gas supplied from the grid (CFCL agent). Design life (years) 10 Electrical power (kWe) 150 Electrical efficiency (%) 60% Heating power (kWth) 58 Heating Efficiency (%) 25% CO2 saving (Tonnes pa) 350-500 Capital cost, ex VAT (£) £1,950,00013 Maintenance, ex VAT (£ pa) £450 Subsidy 1 (GD/ECO) n/a Subsidy 2 (RHI) n/a Subsity 3 (FITS) £200,000 pa14 Subsidy 4 (other) n/a Payback (Years) 10.8 ROI 9% 13 100 BlueGENs @ £17,000 plus £2,400 installation for each unit. 14 Guaranteed for 10 years.
    • 50  5 CTC ENERTECH GROUP LTD Description GSHP, heat only distributed solution based on 3 dwelling types (2 bed apartments, 3 bed semi-detached and 5 bed detached) Design life (years) 25 Electrical power (kWe) -1,21015 Electrical efficiency (%) n/a Heating power (kWth) 6,170 Heating Efficiency (%) 510% CO2 saving (Tonnes pa) 568 Capital cost, ex VAT (£) £4,534,400 Maintenance, ex VAT (£ pa) £60,000 Subsidy 1 (GD/ECO) n/a Subsidy 2 (RHI) £928,850 Subsity 3 (FITS) n/a Subsidy 4 (other) n/a Payback (Years) 5.5 ROI 18% 15 This is the electrical power required to drive the heat pumps.
    • 51  6 SAV UK LTD Description Cluster (half-way between centralized and distributed) system using 13 of 4 XRGI 20G LoadTracker™ CHP Energy units. Design life (years) 1516 Electrical power (kWe) 1,040 Electrical efficiency (%) 30% Heating power (kWth) 2,000 Heating Efficiency (%) 60% CO2 saving (Tonnes pa) 466 Capital cost, ex VAT (£) £2,479,795 Maintenance, ex VAT (£) £83,200 Subsidy 1 (GD/ECO) n/a Subsidy 2 (RHI) n/a Subsity 3 (FITS) n/a Subsidy 4 (other) n/a Payback (Years) Indeterminate ROI Indeterminate 16 This estimate assumes equipment would be replaced after 15 years with more efficient models.
    • 52  7 DYNAMIC INSULATION SOLUTIONS LTD (DYINSO) Description New types of External Wall Insulation (EWI) and Internal Wall Insulation (IWI) to passively or actively reduce fabric heat losses17. Design life (years) 60 Electrical power (kWe) n/a Electrical efficiency (%) n/a Heating power (kWth) n/a Heating Efficiency (%) n/a CO2 saving (Tonnes pa) 400 Capital cost, ex VAT (£) £3,000,000 Maintenance, ex VAT (£) 0 Subsidy 1 (GD/ECO) £200,000 Subsidy 2 (RHI) n/a Subsity 3 (FITS) n/a Subsidy 4 (other) n/a Payback (Years) Indeterminate ROI Indeterminate 17 Conventional ‘static’ EWI and IWI retrofits are prevalent and well known. They have not been considered in the present study for two reasons. Firstly, they are not in the same ‘superinsulation’ performance league as VSDI. Secondly, they do not provide system synergies in the same way that VSDI does, for example by boosting the COP of a heat pump-coupled system.
    • 53  Comparative analysis The complex relationship between the capital cost of a chosen solution and variables such as the maintenance cost, payback time, ROI, and the amount of carbon emission reduction achieved is summarized in Table 7. In some cases the differences are due to the technology used, in others the distorting effect of subsidies. There is also the fact that some of the options only produce heat whereas others provide some electricity and heat simultaneously. The variations are illustrated in Figures 33 – 36 for the options considered excluding VSDI, which would normally be used in conjunction with all of energy supply solutions. Although these figures are based on approximate cost estimates obtained in the course of the study, they nonetheless highlight some useful, salient points. For instance, in Figure 33 the lower the capital and maintenance costs of an option the more cost effective it appears to be, etc. The approximate costs are also a useful means of allowing systems suppliers to consider ways in which their costs can be moderated and adjusted to make them more competitive. This is important for the time when Transition Linlithgow embarks on more detailed pilot plant designs and demonstration trials in future. { Initial findings } On most counts (capital cost, maintenance cost, payback time and ROI), the CFCL system appears to be the most competitive μ-CHP-based solution that also pays for itself through the Feed In Tariff Subsidy (FITS) in less than 10 years. The iPOWER system, which is essentially identical, is slightly more expensive. Clearly, buying direct from the manufacturer in this case would be advantageous. CTC’s heat pump system, while more expensive and limited to energy efficient electric heating, will attract sufficient subsidy through the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) to pay for itself in 5 years. VITAL ENERGI’s biomass district heating system is the most expensive and attracts the least (some RHI) subsidy. It also yields the highest CO2 reduction. However, repayment through the subsidy route will take decades to complete, extending well beyond the design like of the system. FINNING and SAV (UK) both offer CHP systems capable of meeting both electrical power and heating needs of properties in the Linlithgow Cross target area. Neither is eligible for government subsidy under FITS or RHI. Although the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) and Green Deal (GD) are effectively on hold at this time, it is unlikely that subsidy through either of these sources would be forthcoming. Notwithstanding these initial findings, it is anticipated that the optimum solution for Linlithgow will require a mix to technologies to be harnessed.
    • 54  Table 7. Summary of specs and costs on offer for the six systems considered, +VSDI (all estimated based on 400 dwellings-equivalent sample). (a) DYINSO is the short name of Dynamic Insulation Solutions Ltd. It is anticipated that VSDI-enabled EWI and IWI retrofit insulation would be combined with each of the 6 energy supply technological solutions and that its effect would be to reduce the size and cost of these systems. COMPANY FINNING VITAL CFCL IPOWER CTC SAV UK DYINSO(a) Technological Solution CHP (Large) Biomass DH μ-CHP (FC) μ-CHP (FC) GSHP μ-CHP (IC) VSDI Design life (years) 20 20 10 10 25 15 60 Electrical power (kWe) 1,400 150 150 -1210 1,040 0 Electrical efficiency (%) 42% 60% 60% 30% 0 Heating power (kWth) 1,400 2,550 58 58 6,170 2,000 0 Heating Efficiency (%) 58% 75% 25% 25% 510% 60% 0 CO2 saving (Tonnes pa) 660 900 425 425 568 466 400 Capital cost, ex VAT (£) £2,840,000 £5,894,174 £1,675,000 £1,950,000 £4,534,400 £2,479,795 £3,000,000 Maintenance, ex VAT (£/10yrs) 0 0 £450,000 £450,000 £600,000 £832,000 0 Subsidy 1 (GD & ECO, £) X X X X X X £200,000 Subsidy 2 (RHI, £/10yrs) X £800,000 X X £9,288,500 X X Subsity 3 (FITS, £/10yrs) X X £2,000,000 £2,000,000 X X X Payback (Years) Indeterminate 196.5 9.3 10.8 5.5 Indeterminate 15 ROI (%) Indeterminate 1% 11% 9% 18% Indeterminate 7%
    • 55  Figure 33 Figure 34
    • 56  Figure 35 Figure 36
    • 57  Conclusions and recommendations Preliminary conclusions LInlithgow Cross presents a microcosm of building types and styles that span centuries of community life and development. The baseline energy use survey has established the current mosaic of complex variations in energy use, energy efficiency and associated carbon emissions. A look at Figures 23 to 25 provides ample evidence that there is no one solution that fits all, and that a mix of solutions, based on different technological approaches, is going to be required. The range of potential technological solutions that can be applied to reduce energy use and carbon emissions is summarized in Table 8. If the objective is energy use reduction then all 8 solutions may be considered. In some cases staged application is possible, for example insulation first, then at a later date a new boiler or heat pump could be added. If, on the other hand, the objective is to achieve total independence from the electricity grid then the only solution that merits consideration is 7. Finally, if a ‘hybrid’ solution that involves some grid connectivity is permitted then solutions 4 to 6 can be considered. Solution 8 will always require connection to the electricity grid, as it is a heating only option. Table 8. A matrix of selected technological solutions that could be applied in Linlithgow. (a) G = Grid, H = Hybrid (i.e., Grid + Local), L = Local (Off-grid,centralised). Other technological solutions are possible. For example, the baseline survey shows that the Vennel flats are high consumers of electricity, and so a fabric-first solution that includes solar PV panels on the roof of the building could have merit. It should Option Technology Technological Solutions Priority Level Cost Level1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 District heating (Biomass Boiler)  Low High CHP (Large IC engine)  μ-CHP (Ceramic fuel cell)   μ-CHP (Small IC engine)  Ground source heat pump   New A-Rated gas boiler    Thermal insulation (VSDI EWI / IWI)         High Low Energy source(a) G G G H H H L G
    • 58  be noted that all of the Hybrid solutions aim to minimize reliance on the grid; it may be possible once subsidy is lifted for these Hybrids to become Local (decentralized). In summary, it is concluded that:  There is significant variation between building types, sizes, historic significance and the type and range of energy demand in the Linlithgow Cross area;  This demonstrates that finding one technological solution that fits all will not be possible, and that a mix of technologies and technological solutions is required;  Seven technologies were considered in the course of this study, all of which can contribute to significant reductions in energy use and carbon emission;  Of the 7 technologies considered, only 1 (Large CHP, by Finning) can provide a stand-alone, grid-independent technological solution;  Two μ-CHP technologies (Fuel cell by CFCL and IC engine by SAV UK) can be use as part of 3 or more Hybrid, grid-connected technological solutions.  A subset of 8 technological solutions that each include one or more of the 7 technologies considered are presented in Table 8;  The results suggest that energy use and carbon emissions in Linlithgow can be reduced by 50% or higher across the board. This translates into an average saving of £730 per year for every property in Linlithgow Cross.  All of the technological solutions will save energy and reduce carbon emissions. Not all are necessarily appropriate for all pf the buildings in Linlithgow Cross.  The precise amount of energy use reduction and carbon emission saving required detailed design studies to be commissioned as soon as possible.  In all cases, the ‘fabric first’ principle applies: what this means is that it is a pre- requisite for the buildings in Linlithgow Cross to first be properly insulated;  The capital and operating (including recurring maintenance) costs of the selected technological solutions that have been discussed are likely to vary significantly.  Government subsidies disproportionately distort the economic viability of some solutions in favour of others.  VITAL ENERGI’s biomass boiler solution at £5.89 million would save 900 TCO2/yr whereas CTC’s heat pumps at £4.53 million would save 568 TCO2/yr; effectively, the latter receives less than 8.6% of the former’s RHI subsidy;  For some technological solutions, the lack of subsidies and in the absence of a viable carbon market, payback time and ROI are shown as ‘indeterminate’.  A community managed Energy Supply Company (ESCo) could generate the repayments for these indeterminate technological solutions, but care is needed to ensure this does not completely erode energy cost savings to the consumer.  The priority is to identify technological solutions for a pilot / demonstration project that would put the findings of this preliminary feasibility study to the test.  The following are tentatively proposed energy hotspot candidate buildings / groups of buildings on the energy map in Figure 37:  Community GSHP (CTC) + VSDI (DYINSO) system (3), Cross House;  Social Housing tenement, small IC engine μ-CHP (SAV UK) + VSDI (DYINSO) system (4), 223 Brae Court;  Domestic fuel cell μ-CHP (CFCL) + GSHP (CTC) + VSDI (DYINSO) system (6), 212-214 High Street;  Education / Leisure large CHP (Finning) + VSDI (DYINSO) system (7), Low Port Centre and Primary School.
    • 59  Figure 37    
    • 60  Recommendations for future work The study as established the justification and scientific basis for continuing this important line of enquiry and endeavor. The building stock in Linlithgow Cross has many positive attributes and few negative ones, but amongst the latter is poor energy efficiency and a consequently large carbon footprint. Bill payers will also be aware of the continuing and inexorable, above inflation rises in energy costs, with more promised in the years to come. It is unlikely that Linlithgow is alone in this regard, as many towns and cities from a similar age, across Scotland and the UK, are facing similar challenges. What is different about Linlithgow is the undeniable passion and energy that the members of Transition Linlithgow have to combat climate change. The First Recommendation is therefore to keep the passion alive by demonstrating to their fellow citizens that good intent can lead to real tangible benefits for the and their community. The best way to do this is by demonstrating what is possible and practicable to do. Armed with the findings of this report and continued backing of the local community, it should be a relatively straightforward matter to produce a strong proposal / application for funding. This has to be done without delay, to realize one or more pilot demonstration projects based on the ones that have been outlined in the previous section. The Second Recommendation is to engage with the suppliers of the technologies that have been examined in this report and ask them to develop detailed proposals (designs and performance predictions) for the target buildings / building groupings that have been selected for piloting. An important part of their work will be to identify areas of uncertainty where performance monitoring will be directed. The technology providers need to become members of the bid team(s) for pilot / demonstration project funding. At this time there are several open calls, for example by Europe’s Horizon 2020 (H-2020) programme and InnovateUK (MBE), that are relevant to the cause – see: - H-2020: Technology for district heating and cooling EE-13-2014 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/20 65-ee-13-2014.html - Modern Built Environment KTN: Localised energy systems - a cross-sector approach https://connect.innovateuk.org/en/web/modernbuiltktn. The Third Recommendation is to focus on the 2 most important factors that will determine the success or failure of the effort, namely (a) is it practical and do-able, and (b) is it affordable and can it be financed? The Fourth and Final Recommendation is to do all of this quickly, to maximize the use of government subsidy, which is finite, to leverage the changes and investment that need to happen to make the transition to a low carbon future possible.
    • 61  Community feedback summary The results of the study were presented at a community gathering in Linlithgow on Sunday 16th March 2014. At the end of the presentation and subsequent discussion the 29 attendees were asked to complete the questionnaire in Appendix 1. The following is extracted from the community feedback report of the 12 written responses received that was compiled by Mr Neil Barnes. { Overall tenor of the responses } - 90% want TL to continue to seek solutions to reducing energy consumption. - 83% made further comments, suggestions or offers to contribute. - 67% are interested in solutions for their own homes/buildings. - 58% were positive about the research. { Responses to question 1 } - Comments included ‘interesting’, ‘good’, ‘exciting, inspiring work’, ‘very heartening to see this kind of work in motion’. - There were many questions and issues raised relating to: o Leasing heat and power distribution . . . o Incorporate telecommunications and internet . . . o Extend research into self sustainability/renewables . . . o Carry on with more specific options . . . o Use Cross for pilot . . . o Interesting colour coding for data . . . o Solutions seem more dependent on individual responsibilities . . . o Presentation a little technical . . . - Concerns citing gaps or problems: o Unconvinced central Linlithgow is good exemplar for CHP due to conservation status etc., but suggested individual buildings or groups like the Vennel flats . . . o Variations in High St building consumption projections – can this be explained? o Too academic . . . o No feedback to questions of real and successful examples or methods of funding. { Responses to question 2 } - The positive comments included: o To achieve change, need good examples, so press ahead . . . o Very interested in seeing it happen . . . o In favour . . . o Local resident offering support on helping this project move forward . . . o Excellent idea . . . o Yes, supportive . . . o ‘Necessity, not an option’ . . . o ‘All in favour’ . . . o Positive . . . o Really positive solutions being looked at to reduce energy in the Cross buildings. - Some of the concerns included: o Had hoped for solutions . . . that could be replicated beyond Cross . . .
    • 62  o Do insulation first, then other solutions start to make sense . . . o Please don’t dig up the stone pavings and ‘setts’ . . . o Not my responsibility in decision-making . . . o Extend research to West Port, Linlithgow Bridge, etc, once prototypes enacted/ reviewed . . . o Ensure solutions not detrimental to fabric of historic buildings. { Responses to question 3 } - The positive responses included: o Very interested in being involved in the project . . . o Having access to CHP . . . o Yes – but letting and unable to act just yet . . . o Need to scrutinise full report and solutions first . . . o Fuel cell and heat pumps taking heat from the cavity walls . . . o Single cell unit (insulation?) for individual owners could be promoted through TL as was done for PV panels . . . o Now considering IWI; interested in finding out more on ‘DWI’ (dynamic wall insulation) as retrofit solution . . . o Yes to using thermal imaging on home . . . o Deep ground source heat pump – could this become as popular as solar PV? o Bigger the better . . . - The concerns included: o Concerned that this might exclude private tenants receiving benefits and on low income . . . o Super insulation appears interesting but likely to be difficult to retrofit . . . o Difficult as only a tenant . . . { Responses to question 4 } - Suggestions and comments included: o Attend meetings . . . o Good effort. Difficult to get public involvement in this subject area . . . o Present outside Tesco in the Regent Centre next time . . . o Expansion of solar PV . . . o Loch, canal and wider use of public assets . . . o Encourage draught proofing . . . o Establish Purchasing Cooperative (with other Transition groups) . . . o Hydro power – Linlithgow turbine . . . o Set up Linlithgow Power Company . . . o Would encourage others (e.g. Highfield) to sign up/change supplier . . . o Information/publicity – circulate aims and possible outcomes . . . o Very interested in helping LNG initiative progress/grow especially with social media/marketing . . . o Don’t know – energy consumption quite low but costly . . . o Would like to help but don’t have many evenings free due to work . . . { Question and answer session on presentation } - Several questions were posed on in the dynamic insulation system, heating and renewable technologies, funding, energy efficiency/house prices and other aspects.
    • 63  { Other feedback received } - Historic Scotland responded very positively by email to support TL/LNG’s initiatives and research, which is aligned closely to its plans on climate change and the loch potentially, and also sent energy consumption data for the local buildings owned. - Clive Dyson, local resident and Treasurer, and Gill Fawcitt, local resident and Chair of Linlithgow Community Development Trust, also wrote with positive support and recommendations on potential solutions. { Conclusions } - The number of people and businesses in attendance from the community was low, or just over 6% of the target total of 370 properties from the immediate Cross area. Moreover, the event was open to the whole town. - Under half of those who did appear submitted written feedback responses. - The majority are supportive of TL/LNG moving forward and the research but the sample is too low to be of any great significance. - The event provides some positive justification to allow TL to gather a little more support for its initiatives. - Many concrete suggestions were put forward to build upon { Recommendations } - Engage with more people and businesses on the research to date through bespoke events, publicity and marketing. - Build on the suggestions and offers for support received above. - Investigate the potential for insulation and renewable schemes.
    • 64  References [1] King K., Community Energy: Planning, development and delivery, International District Energy Association, 2012. [2] National Grid, Investigation Into Transmission Losses on UK Electricity Transmission System, Technical Report, June 2008. [3] The ATOS Group, District Heating Action Plan, Response to the Expert Commission on District Heating, The Scottish Government, 2013. [4] King M and Shaw R. Community Energy:Planning,development and delivery, 2010. [5] Wikipedia, Cogeneration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration, 2014. [6] Smith A, A River Runs Through (Case study), CIBSE Journal, 34-38, 1, 2014. [7] Imbabi, MSE., A passive-active dynamic insulation system for all climates. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 1/2, 247-258, 2012. [8] The Scottish Government, Scottish house condition survey – key findings, 2010. [9] Wilson C, Chryssochoidis C and Pettifor H. Understanding Homeowners’ Renovation Decisions: Findings of the VERD Project, UKERC Report No. UKERC/WP/ED/2013/001, 2013. [10] Fuerst F, McAllister P, Nanda A, Wyatt P. An investigation of the effect of EPC ratings on house prices, DECC Report No. URN: 13D/148, 2013.
    • 65  Appendix 1